8 ms·

When ever I see a new place or country allowing a test of these cars this wired article always comes to mind [1]. I think the two main questions will be liabil

When ever I see a new place or country allowing a test of these cars this wired article always comes to mind [1]. I think the two main questions will be liability & drivability - 1) when (not if) these cars get into a serious crash, who is to assume liability? Is it Google who created the algorithm? Is it the Audi integrator who fused Google technology into the Audi? Is it the fault of the mapping software that did not update the fact that the signals had been moved to a different position on that street? 2) More mundane - will a driverless car be able to drive every single place that a drivered car would? When a flash flood closes down the freeway will this autonomous beast be able to drive on the back road that is normally closed to traffic? Having said that I cannot wait for Cars-As-A-Service where the Cars park themselves & disappear when I don't need them and magically reappear when I do (without humans - Lyft, Uber et al. need not apply). [1] http://www.wired.com/2014/05/the-robot-car-of-tomorrow-might-just-be-programmed-to-hit-you/ http://www.wired.com/2014/05/the-robot-car-of-tomorrow-might...

knocte 12y ago
wrt 1), I think it's preferable to study each scarce accident very closely to avoid it to happen again (like it happens in the aviation industry) rather than just being scared of the technology and remaining on the status-quo of allowing so many casualties each year because we still allow humans to drive.
- sudorank 12y ago
  Exactly, once they get these vehicles right accidents will be a pretty rare thing. Until then it has to be a case of "tough" if you want to sue. The Victorians had the right attitude to future technology and it's something we need to get back to.
  - andygates 12y ago
    No, they had horrible workplace diseases and injuries and a dreadful attitude to health. If your business model includes telling potential litigants to man up, you're not going into space today.
- Already__Taken 12y ago
  It's also one of those scary questions we'd all like a clear answer to before we depend on the technology. However it's exactly the kind of question the courts were invented to answer. The aviation industry is a fantastic parallel that should be modelled after.
simcop2387 12y ago
My impression from at least the google cars is that they aren't relying on map data to find signs and signals, though they might update that data from the cars so they can reduce processing time later. I'd also expect any accident to end up worldwide news simply because it's the first ever of it's kind. Same thing happened with the first car accident in the world, it happened in 1891 in Ohio [1]. I'd imagine that #2 will take longer to take care of properly, but with the traffic and accidentent and road closure monitoring that goes on now I'm going to bet that it'll at least be kind of decent, I'm actually more worried that it won't be able to follow detours properly and cause gridlock around construction areas during the transition from human driven cars to driver-less. [1] http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/World's_First_Automobile_Accident?rec=2596 http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/World's_First_Automobile...
ignostic 12y ago
You always voice the same concerns, I always hear the same concerns. It's crazy to me that people get hung up on the liability issue. 1) Liability is assessed exactly as it is now. We use the same system to determine which car was at fault. If it's your car, you are at fault. Someone will insure a self-driving car, especially once the safety record is established. Your current provider might not, but someone will. If you were using the self-driving system improperly (e.g. in weather it can't handle well in yet), you may also be subject to different rules or even criminal prosecution. Vendors may also be willing to pay for that insurance as part of a monthly fee just to shut people up over this very easy-to-solve "concern." If no one is willing to insure your self-driving car, I'll start that business. I could charge a premium for a service that costs me less to provide! 2) People seem to think self-driving cars should be perfect before they're introduced. They won't be. Neither are we. It just has to be better (under given weather/traffic conditions) than we are to save lives. We'll have steering wheels in the cars for a long time which you'll have to use when the car can't safely drive itself. The Wired article is just clickbait using the fear angle. We face the same decisions every day, and "unavoidable" accidents will be even more rare than it is now as this technology evolves.
- icebraining 12y ago
  I don't think (1) is all that clear. I'd say it depends on what happens when the liable driver sues the vendor. That said, even if the vendors are found to be liable, I don't think that will change anything much, except maybe slightly raise the price of cars.
- joncrocks 12y ago
  While I agree that liability will be assessed the same way it is now, the answer isn't always: If it's your car, you are at fault. There are examples of situations where a car producer/manufacturer was at fault for accidents, caused by bad software. The question is where that line will be in the myriad of situations that will be more complex due to the the introduction of automation. The control system itself is then a part of the car, which will dramatically increase the likelihood that it is at-fault in the case of an accident. It presumably would have to be audit-able in the case of an accident to identify whether it made the 'correct' decisions or not, adding additional legal and technical complexity. If privately owned, would there be regular sensor cleaning/calibration tasks that need to be met before the manufacturer is deemed liable? What about tire pressure? There will be a lot of factors that could go into deciding whether the user or manufacturer was at fault in the case of an accident that simply wouldn't be a problem now, because the user of the vehicle is also the one responsible for maintenance.
Karellen 12y ago
Thanks for that great link. I think the answer to 1) is going to end up as "insurance companies". In order to put an autonomous vehicle on the road, it's going to have to be insured. Insurance companies will have to vet any and all autonomous vehicles anyway, assume direct financial liability for all harms resulting from anything that could go wrong with such a vehicle, and charge whatever premiums they think are approprite to cover those liabilities to the owner of each vehicle. How they vet autonomous vehicles up to them, and it's probably going to be tricky at first - maybe on a comparable order of trickyness as actually making an autonomous vehicle. But they're going to have to do it if only to get their premiums right. Maybe they'll require certain development practices, like using specific programming languages, or programming conventions within a language, or requiring 3rd party static analysis of all the code (e.g. Coverity), or mandatory reviews of all checkins by at least one other developer than the person who wrote it, or a certain level of automated test coverage, or "passing" a certain percentage of simulated situations. Whatever the insurance companies do, they're going to have to get some measure of how dangerous these vehicles are. The better a manufacturer does on the vetting process, the more open they are, the lower the premiums will be to any owners of their cars. At that point, the insurance companies should be in a position to assume all direct financial liability resulting from an accident - as they are now (discounting your excess) - including negligence, as that's the only incentive we can put on them to ensure they've done their part right. The lawyers will of course ensure that if a vehicle as supplied is not up to the standard that the insurance company confirmed, either in terms of hardware or software, then the insurance company will have a way to take that up with the manufacturer. Naturally, if you mod your autonomous vehicle in any ways not permitted by your cover, you may void your insurance. At that point the liability falls entirely on you, the owner. But again, that's just as things are now.
- mseebach 12y ago
  The first couple of rounds of insurance might be issued by a venture capital style fund rather than traditional insurance, as a necessary investment in the ecosystem to get the market underway. There will of course be actuarial exercises involved, but rather than trying to predict everything and more and imposing unnecessarily limiting restrictions (which is not to say there shouldn't be any) on the development process, they'll accept the increased risk to get the feedback from actual daily use bootstrapped. Once there's a better understanding of the issues that will occur in the real world, traditional insurers will join the fray.
anigbrowl 12y ago
Liability to some extent depends on the jurisdiction. For example, Washington DC will require drivers of autonomous-capable cars to get a special license endorsement and assume legal responsibility for the operation of the vehicle regardless of whether it is in autonomous mode or not. Presumably a driver who incurred legal liability for an accident while in autonomous mode would then turn around and seek damages from the vehicle and automation services provider as a separate action. For a completely autonomous vehicle (eg a bus or delivery van) the victim would likely recover from the corporate operator, who would probably not be using COTS technology anyway (think how UPS has its own trucks, or buses are often built to order for transit agencies). http://dcist.com/2014/04/dc_preparing_for_terrifying_future.php http://dcist.com/2014/04/dc_preparing_for_terrifying_future.... This page is a hub for legal information regarding autonomous vehicles: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/wiki/index.php/Automated_Driving:_Legislative_and_Regulatory_Action#cite_note-0 http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/wiki/index.php/Automated_Drivin... The federal body (National Highway Transportation and Safety Board) seems to focused primarily on the development of technical standards that will allow for a uniform certification. But questions of driver liability will likely be left to the states, as most accidents resulting in lawsuits are tort actions alleging driver negligence, and different states have different rules on both driving and allocation of fault.
Istof 12y ago
I would say that if the technology used in a car is at fault, then the manufacturer of that car will be held liable (just take a look at all the recalls)... later, they can sue whoever created that technology if they feel like it
csomar 12y ago
1) How is this different from cars driven by humans? In my country (no knowledge about other countries), you insure the car, and not the driver. The insurer doesn't care about the driver and shouldn't. 2) I think there should be always an option to drive the car yourself.
- viraptor 12y ago
  In the UK you insure (driver,car) pair by default. Fleet drivers, special vehicle drivers, valet workers, etc. will have a different deal.

knocte 12y ago

wrt 1), I think it's preferable to study each scarce accident very closely to avoid it to happen again (like it happens in the aviation industry) rather than just being scared of the technology and remaining on the status-quo of allowing so many casualties each year because we still allow humans to drive.

sudorank 12y ago
Exactly, once they get these vehicles right accidents will be a pretty rare thing. Until then it has to be a case of "tough" if you want to sue. The Victorians had the right attitude to future technology and it's something we need to get back to.
- andygates 12y ago
  No, they had horrible workplace diseases and injuries and a dreadful attitude to health. If your business model includes telling potential litigants to man up, you're not going into space today.
Already__Taken 12y ago
It's also one of those scary questions we'd all like a clear answer to before we depend on the technology. However it's exactly the kind of question the courts were invented to answer. The aviation industry is a fantastic parallel that should be modelled after.

simcop2387 12y ago

My impression from at least the google cars is that they aren't relying on map data to find signs and signals, though they might update that data from the cars so they can reduce processing time later. I'd also expect any accident to end up worldwide news simply because it's the first ever of it's kind. Same thing happened with the first car accident in the world, it happened in 1891 in Ohio [1]. I'd imagine that #2 will take longer to take care of properly, but with the traffic and accidentent and road closure monitoring that goes on now I'm going to bet that it'll at least be kind of decent, I'm actually more worried that it won't be able to follow detours properly and cause gridlock around construction areas during the transition from human driven cars to driver-less. [1] http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/World's_First_Automobile_Accident?rec=2596 http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/World's_First_Automobile...

ignostic 12y ago

You always voice the same concerns, I always hear the same concerns. It's crazy to me that people get hung up on the liability issue. 1) Liability is assessed exactly as it is now. We use the same system to determine which car was at fault. If it's your car, you are at fault. Someone will insure a self-driving car, especially once the safety record is established. Your current provider might not, but someone will. If you were using the self-driving system improperly (e.g. in weather it can't handle well in yet), you may also be subject to different rules or even criminal prosecution. Vendors may also be willing to pay for that insurance as part of a monthly fee just to shut people up over this very easy-to-solve "concern." If no one is willing to insure your self-driving car, I'll start that business. I could charge a premium for a service that costs me less to provide! 2) People seem to think self-driving cars should be perfect before they're introduced. They won't be. Neither are we. It just has to be better (under given weather/traffic conditions) than we are to save lives. We'll have steering wheels in the cars for a long time which you'll have to use when the car can't safely drive itself. The Wired article is just clickbait using the fear angle. We face the same decisions every day, and "unavoidable" accidents will be even more rare than it is now as this technology evolves.

icebraining 12y ago
I don't think (1) is all that clear. I'd say it depends on what happens when the liable driver sues the vendor. That said, even if the vendors are found to be liable, I don't think that will change anything much, except maybe slightly raise the price of cars.
joncrocks 12y ago
While I agree that liability will be assessed the same way it is now, the answer isn't always: If it's your car, you are at fault. There are examples of situations where a car producer/manufacturer was at fault for accidents, caused by bad software. The question is where that line will be in the myriad of situations that will be more complex due to the the introduction of automation. The control system itself is then a part of the car, which will dramatically increase the likelihood that it is at-fault in the case of an accident. It presumably would have to be audit-able in the case of an accident to identify whether it made the 'correct' decisions or not, adding additional legal and technical complexity. If privately owned, would there be regular sensor cleaning/calibration tasks that need to be met before the manufacturer is deemed liable? What about tire pressure? There will be a lot of factors that could go into deciding whether the user or manufacturer was at fault in the case of an accident that simply wouldn't be a problem now, because the user of the vehicle is also the one responsible for maintenance.

Karellen 12y ago

Thanks for that great link. I think the answer to 1) is going to end up as "insurance companies". In order to put an autonomous vehicle on the road, it's going to have to be insured. Insurance companies will have to vet any and all autonomous vehicles anyway, assume direct financial liability for all harms resulting from anything that could go wrong with such a vehicle, and charge whatever premiums they think are approprite to cover those liabilities to the owner of each vehicle. How they vet autonomous vehicles up to them, and it's probably going to be tricky at first - maybe on a comparable order of trickyness as actually making an autonomous vehicle. But they're going to have to do it if only to get their premiums right. Maybe they'll require certain development practices, like using specific programming languages, or programming conventions within a language, or requiring 3rd party static analysis of all the code (e.g. Coverity), or mandatory reviews of all checkins by at least one other developer than the person who wrote it, or a certain level of automated test coverage, or "passing" a certain percentage of simulated situations. Whatever the insurance companies do, they're going to have to get some measure of how dangerous these vehicles are. The better a manufacturer does on the vetting process, the more open they are, the lower the premiums will be to any owners of their cars. At that point, the insurance companies should be in a position to assume all direct financial liability resulting from an accident - as they are now (discounting your excess) - including negligence, as that's the only incentive we can put on them to ensure they've done their part right. The lawyers will of course ensure that if a vehicle as supplied is not up to the standard that the insurance company confirmed, either in terms of hardware or software, then the insurance company will have a way to take that up with the manufacturer. Naturally, if you mod your autonomous vehicle in any ways not permitted by your cover, you may void your insurance. At that point the liability falls entirely on you, the owner. But again, that's just as things are now.

mseebach 12y ago
The first couple of rounds of insurance might be issued by a venture capital style fund rather than traditional insurance, as a necessary investment in the ecosystem to get the market underway. There will of course be actuarial exercises involved, but rather than trying to predict everything and more and imposing unnecessarily limiting restrictions (which is not to say there shouldn't be any) on the development process, they'll accept the increased risk to get the feedback from actual daily use bootstrapped. Once there's a better understanding of the issues that will occur in the real world, traditional insurers will join the fray.

anigbrowl 12y ago

Liability to some extent depends on the jurisdiction. For example, Washington DC will require drivers of autonomous-capable cars to get a special license endorsement and assume legal responsibility for the operation of the vehicle regardless of whether it is in autonomous mode or not. Presumably a driver who incurred legal liability for an accident while in autonomous mode would then turn around and seek damages from the vehicle and automation services provider as a separate action. For a completely autonomous vehicle (eg a bus or delivery van) the victim would likely recover from the corporate operator, who would probably not be using COTS technology anyway (think how UPS has its own trucks, or buses are often built to order for transit agencies). http://dcist.com/2014/04/dc_preparing_for_terrifying_future.php http://dcist.com/2014/04/dc_preparing_for_terrifying_future.... This page is a hub for legal information regarding autonomous vehicles: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/wiki/index.php/Automated_Driving:_Legislative_and_Regulatory_Action#cite_note-0 http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/wiki/index.php/Automated_Drivin... The federal body (National Highway Transportation and Safety Board) seems to focused primarily on the development of technical standards that will allow for a uniform certification. But questions of driver liability will likely be left to the states, as most accidents resulting in lawsuits are tort actions alleging driver negligence, and different states have different rules on both driving and allocation of fault.

Istof 12y ago

I would say that if the technology used in a car is at fault, then the manufacturer of that car will be held liable (just take a look at all the recalls)... later, they can sue whoever created that technology if they feel like it

csomar 12y ago

1) How is this different from cars driven by humans? In my country (no knowledge about other countries), you insure the car, and not the driver. The insurer doesn't care about the driver and shouldn't. 2) I think there should be always an option to drive the car yourself.

viraptor 12y ago
In the UK you insure (driver,car) pair by default. Fleet drivers, special vehicle drivers, valet workers, etc. will have a different deal.